Apollo 13 isn't sci-fi. Dark City and Minority Report are good hardcore sci-fi. And Blade Runner.

Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:25 am

mrguinness

Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:42 amPosts: 360Location: NJ

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

oakenshield32 wrote:

This story is quite funny with Into Darkness writer Robert Orci going onto a Star Trek forum and start dropping f bombs on his Trekkie critics. You think he would have a thicker skin after writing so many bad scripts like Transformers and Cowboys and Aliens.

Really sounds like someone who should be writing in Gene Roddenbury's place. vomit...

Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:18 am

Vexer

Auteur

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pmPosts: 3606Location: Zion, IL

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

mrguinness wrote:

oakenshield32 wrote:

This story is quite funny with Into Darkness writer Robert Orci going onto a Star Trek forum and start dropping f bombs on his Trekkie critics. You think he would have a thicker skin after writing so many bad scripts like Transformers and Cowboys and Aliens.

Really sounds like someone who should be writing in Gene Roddenbury's place. vomit...

He was actually being sarcastic when he said that, if you look at his twitter he's really a conspiracy theorist who believes a lot of crazy stuff (I.E. the government was behind 9/11)

Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:59 pm

Unke

Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:45 pmPosts: 474

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

MGamesCook wrote:

Apollo 13 isn't sci-fi. Dark City and Minority Report are good hardcore sci-fi. And Blade Runner.

Hm, I wouldn't call any of these movies hard sci-fi, but that's more a feeling because there doesn't seem to be a clear definition. I would define hard sci-fi as a science-based and realistic depiction of the future, which strives for scientific and technical accuracy, but that would actually mean that there are hardly any hard sci-fi movies ("2001 - A Space Odyssey", "The Andromeda Strain", "Silent Running", "Solyaris" or "Moon" perhaps). According to wikipedia, Philip K. Dick's novels (of which 'Minority Report' and 'Blade Runner' adaptations) are generally considered "soft sci-fi", meaning they are focussing on social rather than technical development.

Be that as it may, 'Star Trek' isn't hard sci-fi, which doesn't mean that it isn't intelligent, though

Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:00 pm

oakenshield32

Cinematographer

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pmPosts: 541

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Unke wrote:

MGamesCook wrote:

Apollo 13 isn't sci-fi. Dark City and Minority Report are good hardcore sci-fi. And Blade Runner.

Hm, I wouldn't call any of these movies hard sci-fi, but that's more a feeling because there doesn't seem to be a clear definition. I would define hard sci-fi as a science-based and realistic depiction of the future, which strives for scientific and technical accuracy, but that would actually mean that there are hardly any hard sci-fi movies ("2001 - A Space Odyssey", "The Andromeda Strain", "Silent Running", "Solyaris" or "Moon" perhaps). According to wikipedia, Philip K. Dick's novels (of which 'Minority Report' and 'Blade Runner' adaptations) are generally considered "soft sci-fi", meaning they are focussing on social rather than technical development.

Be that as it may, 'Star Trek' isn't hard sci-fi, which doesn't mean that it isn't intelligent, though

Be that as it may, 'Star Trek' isn't hard sci-fi, which doesn't mean that it isn't intelligent, though

STAR TREK straddles the line between science fiction and space opera. For the most part, however, it uses futuristic trappings and settings for allegorical purposes. This was at least true of the TV series and to a degree, the early movies. There's not much allegory going on in the JJ Abrams version. That doesn't mean it's bad but it's just more shallow.

But STAR TREK the TV series at its worst could be excruciatingly dumb. "The Way to Eden," anyone? How 'bout "Spock's Brain"?

Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:53 pm

mrguinness

Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:42 amPosts: 360Location: NJ

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

James Berardinelli wrote:

Unke wrote:

Be that as it may, 'Star Trek' isn't hard sci-fi, which doesn't mean that it isn't intelligent, though

STAR TREK straddles the line between science fiction and space opera. For the most part, however, it uses futuristic trappings and settings for allegorical purposes. This was at least true of the TV series and to a degree, the early movies. There's not much allegory going on in the JJ Abrams version. That doesn't mean it's bad but it's just more shallow.

But STAR TREK the TV series at its worst could be excruciatingly dumb. "The Way to Eden," anyone? How 'bout "Spock's Brain"?

The Way of Eden is kind of a Robert A. Heinlein momento, no? Is it any worse than Star Trek V: The Final Frontier? HERBERT! HERBERT!

But STAR TREK the TV series at its worst could be excruciatingly dumb. "The Way to Eden," anyone? How 'bout "Spock's Brain"?

The Way of Eden is kind of a Robert A. Heinlein momento, no? Is it any worse than Star Trek V: The Final Frontier? HERBERT! HERBERT!

STAR TREK V is worse primarily because it came during a time when we were waiting 2.5 years for a new TREK movie. TVH came out in November 1986; TFF in June 1989. All those months waiting for... that?

"The Way to Eden," which is actually my most hated TOS episode was at least on at a time when STAR TREK was showing weekly. In my case, since I saw it in syndication in the late '70s, it was on every day.

One thing I'll say in Shatner's defense re: TFF. At least he tried to capture the spirit of the series with respect to the concepts of camaraderie between the Main Three, big ideas, and boldly going. He failed rather miserably in some instances, but he tried.

Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:17 pm

mrguinness

Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:42 amPosts: 360Location: NJ

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

James Berardinelli wrote:

STAR TREK V is worse primarily because it came during a time when we were waiting 2.5 years for a new TREK movie. TVH came out in November 1986; TFF in June 1989. All those months waiting for... that?

"The Way to Eden," which is actually my most hated TOS episode was at least on at a time when STAR TREK was showing weekly. In my case, since I saw it in syndication in the late '70s, it was on every day.

One thing I'll say in Shatner's defense re: TFF. At least he tried to capture the spirit of the series with respect to the concepts of camaraderie between the Main Three, big ideas, and boldly going. He failed rather miserably in some instances, but he tried.

The Gorn still ranks as the worst fight in TV history...

Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:01 am

ilovemovies

Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 amPosts: 2258

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Which episode was it where Kirk switches body with some bad guy? That was definitely Shatner's acting at his worst. He was TERRIBLE in that episode.

I actually think Shatner has improved immensely over the years. I actually loved him in Boston Legal. He was hilarious but he also had moments of quiet introspection. A very underrated performance. I know it's an odd thing to call underrated, seeing how he won several emmy and emmy nominations for his work on that show, but I think he's underrated in that people still never really take him seriously.

I also still think The Final Frontier is incredibly underrated. I mean, admittedly, I'm a little biased. The Final Frontier is actually one of the very first movies I ever saw in theaters. I was 7 when it came out in 1989. But even without the nostalgic factor, I think it's actually very good. I love the story involving the search for God. Some of the humor was silly (Scotty hitting his head) but some of it made me laugh. I love the row, row, row your boat scene and Spock trying to comprehend the meaning of the lyrics. Funny stuff IMO. And Sybock is a fascinating, well written character. The scene where they break the great barrier was fantastic. And what they find instead of God, it all worked for me.

Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:01 am

Ken

Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pmPosts: 1743

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

For my money, the Shat's finest work is in Wrath of Khan. It's Kirk at his most human, and the performance is completely legit.

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

the "role reversal death scene" in STID with Kirk dying and Spock being on the other side of the glass?

This is one part of STID that has had a lot of criticism from Wrath of Khan fans.

From the review:

Quote:

One of the most controversial aspects of Star Trek Into Darkness is likely to be the extended segment lifted almost intact (albeit with a role reversal) from one of the earlier Star Trek films. Some will see this as theft, but I prefer to view it as I'm sure it's intended: an homage and another opportunity to find familiarity in a newly reshaped universe. This stuff worked for me - especially the very loud utterance of a famous line - but some may not feel the same way.

Moving on, what's everyone's feelings on how Paramount chose to release the film on BluRay, with Target and Best Buy each getting exclusive featurettes, not to mention the enhanced commentary only being on iTunes?

Sun Sep 15, 2013 2:29 pm

Vexer

Auteur

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pmPosts: 3606Location: Zion, IL

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Luckily for Paramount, the only special features I really care about are deleted/extended scenes, the others I can take or leave. Still it's a pretty low trick to play on fans of the series, I'm guessing part of the reason they're doing it that way is to try and curb piracy.

Well, I have finally seen Star Trek Into Darkness on Rogers on Demand (the cable service's equivalent to On-Demand downloads to the TV), and I really enjoyed the film, in particular the performance of Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan.

This may be heretical to passionate Wrath of Khan aficionados, but I personally thought Cumberbatch's performance was superior to Ricardo Montalban's, in that Cumberbatch's interpretation is simulataneously both more humane and more menacing than the over-the-top version of Montalban's.

All of the other cast members in the series fitted into their respective roles quite nicely, especially Zachary Quinto who seems more at ease as Spock here than in the previous Star Trek film. I also thought Simon Pegg was less fatuous in Star Trek Into Darkness than in the previous film, which is an improvement.

Overall, a solid summer flick and a film worthy of the Star Trek franchise.

Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:00 pm

Ken

Director

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pmPosts: 1743

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

I really liked Cumberbatch's performance, but I have a hard time comparing it to Montalban's, because Cumberbatch's Khan is really nothing like the original character. It's not like new Spock or new Kirk, which clearly have (and are supposed to have) traits in common with the originals. Cumberbatch's character is original in itself--Khan in name only.

As for Montalban, I didn't find him over the top. Close to the top, perhaps, but I think his performance feels a lot more aggressive than it actually is. It's sort of like the violence in a Scorsese movie--it's carefully modulated enough that you walk away with the impression that there's a lot of it, when there really isn't.

And that's what I like about Montalban's Khan. He only occasionally spits and shouts. He spends a lot of time smoldering, which is really a lot more villainous than it would have been if he'd been at Jack Nicholson levels of ham.

_________________The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.

Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:29 pm

ilovemovies

Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 amPosts: 2258

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Cumberbatch's performance was the only one, besides Greenwood and Weller, that didn't feel like a caricature or a parody performance IMO.

I really liked Cumberbatch's performance, but I have a hard time comparing it to Montalban's, because Cumberbatch's Khan is really nothing like the original character. It's not like new Spock or new Kirk, which clearly have (and are supposed to have) traits in common with the originals. Cumberbatch's character is original in itself--Khan in name only.

As for Montalban, I didn't find him over the top. Close to the top, perhaps, but I think his performance feels a lot more aggressive than it actually is. It's sort of like the violence in a Scorsese movie--it's carefully modulated enough that you walk away with the impression that there's a lot of it, when there really isn't.

And that's what I like about Montalban's Khan. He only occasionally spits and shouts. He spends a lot of time smoldering, which is really a lot more villainous than it would have been if he'd been at Jack Nicholson levels of ham.

You are indeed correct in that Cumberbatch's character is original in itself. As far as Montalban is concerned, I didn't mean to imply that his performance was somehow cartoonish -- far from it. Perhaps over-the-top wasn't the best way to describe his performance; a better adjective was ferocious. He really got down and played the part with energy and drive, and in the context of Wrath of Khan, it was a superb performance.

Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:04 am

mrguinness

Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:42 amPosts: 360Location: NJ

Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

ShrunkenHead wrote:

Moving on, what's everyone's feelings on how Paramount chose to release the film on BluRay, with Target and Best Buy each getting exclusive featurettes, not to mention the enhanced commentary only being on iTunes?

Since there are practically no special features/easter eggs available on Amazon, Vudu, Netflix, Ultraviolet, etc, I would say that they are becoming a dying art, or will soon become a product you have to pay for separately.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum